Active OAM for use in Geneve
draft-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-16

The smallest nit:
Section 2.2, second to last para., last sentence:  Through this draft ICMP is called an 'echo', except in this sentence where it is called a 'ping'.  Most people realize that these are the same thing, but why not just use the same word to mean the same thing?  I'd suggest changing 'ping' to 'echo' in this sentence.

Thanks for addressing my previous blocking DISCUSS at:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/nvo3/iB6bhzYMgegIqIgphhhY5NBmQGM/

Nevertheless, I have some new COMMENTS to be addressed before the publication.

## NEW COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Section 2.3

s/from the Dummy IPv6 Range for IPv6 [I-D.ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd]/from the Dummy IPv6 Range for IPv6 *dummy_prefix*/ + add a paragraph with a note to the RFC editor to reply *dummy_prefix* but the IANA allocation for IPv6 Dummy Prefix + remove draft-ietf-mpls-p2mp-bfd from the reference list.

Note: I think that the above is cleaner and also 'breaks' the cluster assuming that IANA acts faster than RFC Editor.

### Use of a source-only address

Some text about using a source-only address as destination on purpose to generate an exception may be useful, perhaps in the introduction.

## PREVIOUS COMMENTS (non-blocking)

### Section 2.1

Isn't requirement #1 implied by requirement #2 ? I.e., all packets complying to requirement #2 also complies to requirement #1 ?

### Section 2.2

Is `Management VNI` the right term for active probing OAM traffic ? I.e., I would not use 'management' for ping and would reserve it for netconf or other configuration/telemetry traffic.

`A packet received over the control channel MUST be forwarded` forwarded by whom and to whom ?

### Section 2.3

Is there any recommendation for inner source IP address/UDP port ?


## NITS (non-blocking / cosmetic)

### Use of SVG graphics

To make a much nicer HTML rendering, suggest using the aasvg too to generate SVG graphics. It is worth a try ;-)

Nicely written document, clear and concise.

Realized the usage of "his" is correct, thus removing it from COMMENT.

Thank you to Paul Kyzivat for the GENART review.

Thank you for this document, and also thanks to Tony Li for the OpsDir review (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/review-ietf-nvo3-geneve-oam-13-opsdir-telechat-li-2025-01-02/) and your followup.

As a nit, the document title is "Active OAM for use in GENEVE", but the document (and RFC 8926) uses Pascal case (Geneve).